Australians do not vote for a Prime Minister, we vote for a political party which nominates its Prime Minister in the event of an election victory.
By convention parties nominate the PM before and promote them during the campaign. PMs can however be chucked out by their own party without a vote by the public, as happened with Kevin Rudd.
PMs do not simply have a carte blanche “mandate” to implement their election promises and must follow all parliamentary process.
Design principles are not legislation, it seems you are unfamiliar with Parliamentary process.
Additionally he (Anthony Albanese) stated that if the referendum is successful, another process would be established to work on the final design, with a subsequent government produced information pamphlet stating that this process would involve Indigenous Australian communities, the Parliament and the broader community, with any legislation going through normal parliamentary scrutiny procedures.
The final design being the legislation.
I hope that clears things up for you.
The exact wording of the Constitutional amendment was released 6-7 months ago.
The Legislation has not been, and likely won’t be seen.
If you have seen the legislation somewhere please share a link.
For progressive no voters, that is correct.
There is of course an element of society who want to ignore or bury any discourse on issues impacting ATSI Australians but they’re not the full picture either.
A few of the arguments or concerns voiced by Australian’s included:
-A Voice with no power is pointless
-Lack of detail in the proposal
-Separating Australian’s by race is divisive (note there’s already constitutional race powers, which I disagree with and hope will be scrapped)
-ATSI people would have more representation than others (they actually have proportionally higher representation in Parliament today than their percentage of population)
-Leaving the exact details of the Voice to legislation means any future government could gut it without violating the constitutional amendment
-concerns this is the first push on a path to treaty and reparations as a percentage of GDP (which WAS discussed as a possibility by the people who worked on the Uluru statement)
I’ve left out the outright lies, though I guarantee someone will take issue with me simply mentioning the talking points to give you context.
Your post is poorly framed, I assume the title is something your partner said and not your actual thoughts.
“it’s a shame too, because they’re messaging wouldn’t have been so useful to a civil debate.”
Not the best quality from the editor there but given it’s in quote I wonder if it was intentional? Still doesn’t play well even if it is.
Literally everything owned by Murdoch is spewing non-stop propaganda.
There were many ATSI people who voted no because they want treaty, not an advisory committee with no veto powers.
Not everyone who voted no is racist and proclaiming they are is far more reminiscent of US divisive politics than how Australian politics works.
The only Territory to vote yes, out of all our States and Territories, was the Australian Capital Territory which is the most educated and most involved with governance.
There are essentially two parts to what was proposed, the first is that having mention of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island (ATSI) peoples in the constitution is recognition.
The second part, which is actually the exact mechanism which was proposed, was a permanent advisory body made up of ATSI representatives with constitutional power to give advice to the Government on issues related to or impacting ATSI people.
The exact details of the advisory body were up to legislation which we will probably never see.
You claimed the legislation had been shown, it has not.
Your misinformation helps no one.